$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', '
')I hate to point out something this obvious, but when EROEI approaches 1 to 1, we're done with oil as a major energy source.
PeakOil is You
Remains Insane
Re: Remains Insane
by shortonsense » Wed 21 Apr 2010, 18:35:29
Not at all. From a theoretical standpoint, every system used by man has an EROEI < 1 because one of the standard tricks of calculating EROEI is to ignore things we don't like to count because it negates the point, much like Peakers and their censored discovery graphs.
For example, you can convert natural gas to synthetic crude all day long at an EROEI < 1 and make money doing it, its just a matter of having the natural gas to convert and the decision to invest the capital to create a given rate of supply. And of actually counting the energy input into the system, the usual "devil in the details" stunt pulled by those pretending that EROEI is relevant.
EROEI related to the oil and gas business, in the scientific articles referenced, have been pretty haphazard at best. Certainly Maddog has made some good points about not even being able to calculate such a thing until all production related to a given system is dead and gone, let alone the equipment to do so have been fully depreciated, in an energy sense, so you can't even calculate the fake EROEI used at peaker sites until oil is dead and gone anyway.
Not that it will matter then in a world run by other forms of energy of course.
-
shortonsense - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Remains Insane
by shortonsense » Wed 21 Apr 2010, 19:42:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')Have you heard of depreciation tables?
Have you ever heard of reefer madness?
-
shortonsense - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Remains Insane
by SeaGypsy » Wed 21 Apr 2010, 20:45:10
EROEI is a very usefull concept for teaching the principles of depletion; yet as short is suggesting in reality too complex for practical application in a specific industrial situation.
Try to calculate the EROEI on something simple, like a carrot; then imagine trying to do it for a 5 year drilling program for a company like Transocean. Impossible; there are too many abstracts and changeable factors. To get right into all the details would mean a given project would lose efficiency overall in the energy required for unnecessary research.
I have a funny picture in my head of an offshore oil future which uses EROEI based decision processes.
It's a 'Transition Town' located on the shore next to the drilling/ extraction rig. The workers commute by solar and wind powered boats out to the rig while their kids ride bikes to permaculture school and the wives busy themselves in the orchards and kitchens. This idealic way of life is preserved by a 50/50 mix of bio fuels exclusively available for military and civil defence organisations sanctioned by the government. etc etc.
While such a way of life may be not too far off, it is not on the horizon of possibilty to most people's way of thinking.
In the real world the reason money was invented is for the efficiency of trade, being of goods or services. The invention of money meant no longer did I have to swap my share in an oil rig for 16 camels to trade with the yacht builder so he could trade them for slaves etc.
Money puts a bubble around specialisations. It lets us focus on a particular system in isolation of factors.
To do anything we need to calculate ROI and estimate future variations in cost/ price. We don't have to think about how many calories of oil went into get our weetbix and coffee on the table for breakfast.
Yet, if we want to live in a sane world, it is necessary the concept of EROEI be widely understood; even if it is never likely to become the dominant thinking of any business. Moving in the direction of energy awareness is a crucial factor in humanity's future, therefore such a usefull concept as EROEI should not be scoffed at. However I agree with Short that the language is open to abuse and politicisation.
Try to calculate the EROEI on something simple, like a carrot; then imagine trying to do it for a 5 year drilling program for a company like Transocean. Impossible; there are too many abstracts and changeable factors. To get right into all the details would mean a given project would lose efficiency overall in the energy required for unnecessary research.
I have a funny picture in my head of an offshore oil future which uses EROEI based decision processes.
It's a 'Transition Town' located on the shore next to the drilling/ extraction rig. The workers commute by solar and wind powered boats out to the rig while their kids ride bikes to permaculture school and the wives busy themselves in the orchards and kitchens. This idealic way of life is preserved by a 50/50 mix of bio fuels exclusively available for military and civil defence organisations sanctioned by the government. etc etc.
While such a way of life may be not too far off, it is not on the horizon of possibilty to most people's way of thinking.
In the real world the reason money was invented is for the efficiency of trade, being of goods or services. The invention of money meant no longer did I have to swap my share in an oil rig for 16 camels to trade with the yacht builder so he could trade them for slaves etc.
Money puts a bubble around specialisations. It lets us focus on a particular system in isolation of factors.
To do anything we need to calculate ROI and estimate future variations in cost/ price. We don't have to think about how many calories of oil went into get our weetbix and coffee on the table for breakfast.
Yet, if we want to live in a sane world, it is necessary the concept of EROEI be widely understood; even if it is never likely to become the dominant thinking of any business. Moving in the direction of energy awareness is a crucial factor in humanity's future, therefore such a usefull concept as EROEI should not be scoffed at. However I agree with Short that the language is open to abuse and politicisation.
- SeaGypsy
- Master Prognosticator
- Posts: 9285
- Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Re: Remains Insane
by shortonsense » Wed 21 Apr 2010, 22:04:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'N')o SeaGypsy, you are wrong.
Actually, SeaGypsy did quite a reasonable job of seeing, and then explaining in a way even a petulant child might understand, why the entire EROEI concept in relation to business decisions has holes in it large enough to drive a solar system through. For you Pee, that means real, REAL big.
Undoubtedly it is his technical training to an advanced level, decades of experience in the sciences and humanities, and worldly experience which allows him this understanding and insight...then again....maybe he doesn't act like he spends all his time attached to a bong and has more than the 5 functioning neurons necessary to READ.
In either case, kudo's to SeaGypsy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')A cursory search of the internet will lead you to this:
Link: REVIEW: A Preliminary Investigation of Energy Return on Energy Investment for Global Oil and Gas Production
Look ma! People studying stuff, and Pstarr pretending its relevant! I didn't notice any actual decisions being made by that thar studying Pee....isn't them thar sentences with more than fiv worsd a bit mur compleecated thans u's kan handles?
(hell, I can't even imitate being wasted...)
A cursory search of the internet will lead you to this:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin! And how often is this study used to decide to explore for, drill, complete, produce and distribution oil and natural gas!
http://everything2.com/title/How+many+a ... a+pin%253F
-
shortonsense - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
I get your point, but you seemed to belabor Mr maddog's expertise just a bit. Again... purely my opinion, for what it's worth.
